Arlington’s 26 square miles are a honeycomb of more than 150 school bus routes and approximately 2,500 school bus stops (pre-pandemic). The majority of APS students are bus-eligible, but thousands walk, bike, drive, or are transported to schools each day in a family car or carpool.

Transportation matters to me for several reasons. These include:

1. Cost: APS’s transportation budget is just over $22 million, or approximately $832 per student. Five years ago, the cost was approximately $650 per student. There are more than 3,000 parking spaces for staff and students on APS property, each of which costs between $15,000 - 75,000 to construct; in addition, APS leases parking for staff at some facilities.

2. Congestion: Nationally, 54% of school-age children are driven to school in a private vehicle, accounting for about 15% of traffic on the road during the morning commute.

3. Student health: Kids exposed to significant traffic pollution run a higher risk of developing asthma, other lung problems, and heart problems as adults. On the positive side, kids who walk, bike, or roll to school are generally more alert and engaged in learning during the day.

4. Climate: As a longtime local Sierra Club volunteer, I’m aware how our transportation choices (mine included!) contribute to climate change. As a mom, I worry about what climate change means for our kids. The transportation sector (within-County and through-County) is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Arlington.

 I think Arlington does a great job encouraging residents to use public transit, walk, and bike--for example, we are one of only 15 communities nationwide to be designated a Gold Level Walk Friendly Community. 

Arlington Public Schools is also working hard on the same front. In 2013, it launched APS Go!, a transportation demand management (TDM) program for the school district. The 2016 APS Go! Plan, even though it’s a few years old, is still a valuable read and many of its recommendations remain relevant goals for us to pursue. Additionally, APS participates in the national, grant-funded Safe Routes to School program to conduct projects and activities that improve safety, enhance accessibility, and reduce traffic and air pollution in the vicinity of schools. To support these efforts, APS provides families with resources like safe walk zone maps posted on each school website and a “SchoolPool” website that helps families form carpools, walking groups or biking groups. Additionally, the iRide program offers APS students a 50% discount on public transit via ART, Metrobus, and Metrorail.


All of this is great, but we can make it even better: more efficient, more convenient, more environmentally friendly, and more cost-effective. Here are some suggestions:

1. Fully utilize school bus capacity. More than 16,000 APS students are eligible to ride the bus, but only about 65% of these students actually do so on a regular basis (again, pre-pandemic data). At the elementary school level, 40% of school bus trips occur under 50% of bus capacity. We could improve upon this by:

• planning routes and bus stops based on families’ actual commitments to bus travel (opting in or out) rather than bus eligibility
• developing a more transit-like school bus system with advertised routes, times, and fewer stops
• transporting students with disabilities alongside other students whenever possible, rather than on separate buses; when separate busing is required, we can open up extra spaces on those buses to siblings and other students who live nearby.

2. Teach transportation as a life skill to all students. Gillian Burgess, a member of the Advisory Committee on Transportation Choices (ACTC) comments: “We teach kids how to swim--and nobody’s going to swim to their job.” Gillian believes we should ensure that all kids know how to ride a bike and that by fifth grade, all kids should know how to use public transit. Gillian shared the example of another school system that teaches about transportation choices and then sponsors a scavenger hunt field trip for its fifth graders: each small team is chaperoned by an adult and must use community public transit to search for landmarks and other scavenger hunt items.

3. Use ART and other public transit options to bus kids to school, particularly older students. The iRide program is a good start, but we can do more. In Alexandria, for example, students ride free on DASH buses and there are no school buses provided for older students where DASH bus routes enable easy commutes to and from school. Washington, DC, has gone a step further and doesn’t provide school buses at all, except for students with disabilities, field trips, and school-sponsored trips to and from extracurricular events. DC’s students ride free on the city’s public transit, including MetroRail. 

I’m not arguing that we need to adopt DC’s solution, but we should certainly investigate when and how we could coordinate service with ART and WMATA and reduce fares for students.

For example, I live on McKinley Road just a few blocks from McKinley Elementary. There used to be a Metrobus stop, and then an ART stop, right in front of my house. Those routes ran to the East Falls Church Metro, and both routes were ultimately cancelled because of low ridership. Next year, the Arlington Traditional School will move into the McKinley building. Twenty-five percent of ATS students are from lower-income families, some of whom will rely on public transportation to reach the school and participate in things like parent-teacher conferences and PTA-sponsored events. Restoring a bus line that runs along McKinley Road past the school would help ATS, and it would help nearby residents who had lost their public transit access due to previous low ridership.
​
This is just one example of the ways that all community members could benefit from collaborative County-APS transportation planning and coordinated public transit service to schools and other destinations. 


If you believe we need School Board members who understand all the issues facing us over the next four years--including transportation--then I hope you'll vote for me in next week's School Board Caucus. Voting happens online May 17-23, and you can find more information about how to vote here. 

As I hope you already know, the Arlington Democrats are holding their School Board Caucus online next week from May 17-23. You’ll find the link to the voting platform, information about how to access in-person assistance from the Arlington Dems, and a brief video demonstrating how to use cast your vote online here.

This is the first year we'll be using an online platform to cast ballots and collect votes. Online voting will provide certain benefits, but it also raises a few thorny issues. I want to talk about one of those issues and explain how I plan to handle it.

In any regular, non-COVID, in-person voting situation, we have safeguards in place to ensure that no voter is pushed into voting a particular way. Candidates, campaign staff and political party volunteers are able to campaign and distribute sample ballots outside a polling place, but they can’t walk in with you and stand next to you at the voting machine. 

In a world of online voting, however, this is now possible: a stranger can knock on your door, approach you as you leave the grocery store or the Metro, or engage you while you’re walking to the park with your kids. The voting machine is in their hands. They’re asking you to vote on the spot, and perhaps urging you to vote for a particular person. If you agree and take the mobile device to enter your personal information, there’s no guarantee that you’re even interacting with the official voting website--maybe this is a website someone’s created to look like the real thing.

I think we’ve had quite enough voting- and election-related conflicts in our country over the past few years, and I have no wish to do anything that would raise a doubt in anyone’s mind about the integrity and validity of the voting results.

That’s why you won’t see me or my campaign volunteers out during the Caucus with devices in hand, approaching strangers to collect their actual votes. I have encouraged the Arlington Democrats to add language to the Caucus Rules that would stipulate the following:

Voters in need of assistance are encouraged to contact the Arlington Democrats, vote at one of the Arlington Democrats-sponsored in-person voting locations, or reach out to a trusted friend or family member for assistance. If a voter is approached by a stranger offering to collect their vote, they should decline, contact the Arlington Democrats to report the incident, and then proceed to vote as described immediately above.

I am 100% in favor of efforts to promote broad participation in the Caucus and ensure that people without the means to vote at home have an avenue to do so; however, encouraging candidates and campaigns to collect votes is a recipe for coercion and intimidation, not enfranchisement. I am particularly concerned about how this might affect those with less privilege in our community and anyone who feels uncomfortable being approached in person during a pandemic. 

If we think it’s a good idea to go door-to-door with mobile devices in order to boost voter turnout, then this should be done by nonpartisan Caucus officials, not by individuals who have a vested interest in the outcome. 

So, May 17-23 you’ll see me and my team using every means at our disposal to ask for your vote--but we won’t be taking your vote, and I’m calling on my opponent to publicly commit to the same. 

​I have tremendous respect for the Arlington Democrats, who do so much to advance the party’s ideals and turn out voters for local, state, and national elections; but I believe that having candidates standing by the ballot box sets a troubling precedent and is a misstep I don’t want my party to make.

Across the country, there's been a lot of talk about how to support students as we recover from the pandemic and deal with its lingering impacts. 

Drawing on my career in education, I know that there are some essentials we'll need to have in place in order to help all our students thrive. I also know that many of these measures would benefit students well beyond the period of pandemic recovery--and so I am hoping we'll make many of these standard operating procedures in APS.

1. Start with basic needs.  Kids can't learn if their basic needs aren't being met. Those needs include food, shelter, rest, health care, economic stability, and secure relationships with trusted adults and peers. Schools, in close collaboration with other community organizations, have to ensure that the children in their charge are ready to learn. We can do this in the following ways:

• Develop better "intake" methods for students and their families. APS can go beyond the traditional back-to-school questionnaires that ask families to describe students' habits, health needs, and areas of concern. Many schools, Wakefield High School among them, conduct home visits (or phone calls, in COVID times) to meet families and understand students' lived experiences and aspirations. Educators and families in more than 20 states swear by home visits as a way to know students better and address their needs more effectively.
• Implement universal, opt-out mental health screening for students. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, approximately half of lifetime mental health conditions begin by age 14. At the same time, the average delay between when symptoms first appear and intervention is approximately 11 years. In its FY22 budget, APS has included funding for universal social-emotional learning screening for students--but this isn't the same as mental health screening. SEL screeners are typically used to assess skills like empathy, conflict resolution, and collaboration. SEL is important--but I would argue that mental health is an even bigger priority for many of our students.
• Commit to trauma-informed practices in every classroom and school. Childhood trauma--what experts call "adverse childhood experiences," or ACEs--dramatically decreases a child's ability to learn and causes lifelong physical and mental health problems. Data show that 50 percent of all kids in the US have experienced ACEs--and that was before the pandemic. Trauma-informed practices can benefit all students, whether or not they report for school with a high number of ACEs. In schools that do this well, trauma-informed practice influences everything from classroom decoration (think soothing, uncluttered) to managing transitions (minimizing abrupt changes) to providing ways for students to understand their triggers, regulate their emotions and advocate for their own needs (for example, by asking for a few minutes in a sensory room or other private spot). 

2. Commit to healthy school culture.  As we recover from the pandemic, we have an opportunity to do more than just "get back to normal." If we're honest, we'll admit that "normal" wasn't working for some of our students and that we can do better. Here are some things we can do:

• Let go of classroom and school rules that weren't working or that disadvantaged certain students. This means taking a fresh look at everything in our student handbooks and classroom rules. What rules aren't effective? Which rules don't make sense anymore? Which rules privilege the traditions and expectations of certain groups, but not others?
• Invite families (and students, in age-appropriate ways) to partner in creating school community norms and identifying and monitoring school improvement priorities with the school staff. 
• Ensure that every student has at least one trusted adult among the school staff. Advisories, if they are done well and not just used as a time to catch up on missed work, can be an excellent way to build positive relationships among staff and students. 

3. Reframe "learning loss."  I've been thinking a lot of about the term "learning loss" and its cousins, "achievement gap" and "academic deficit" and "struggling students." What do these terms have in common? They emphasize what students lack and ignore the strengths they bring. The blame rests with the student, not with the system. 

I thank Gabriela Uro and her colleagues at the Council of Great City Schools for introducing me to the term "unfinished learning," which I like much better. 

Why does our word choice matter? Because of the message it sends to our students about their value. Our kids are more than their reading levels, SOL scores, and end-of-quarter grades. Many have exhibited unbelievable amounts of determination, patience, and maturity during the pandemic. If we reduce them to a score on a standardized test or measure their "grit" only by on-time completion of a difficult assignment, we'll do them an injustice. 

Here's how we can address academics in a more thoughtful way:

• Acknowledge students' strengths. Ask them what skills they learned or what qualities they developed during the past year. Ask them to identify something they did that they're proud of. We can use this information to tap into their strengths while we're working on areas for improvement.
• Conduct careful diagnostic assessments. We'll need to know exactly where each student is at, in terms of knowledge and skills, to design learning experiences that provide the right level of support and challenge. Every student deserves instruction that supports and challenges them.
• Provide robust compensatory services for students with disabilities who may not have received the full range of supports outlined in their IEPs during the pandemic.
• Use research-based curriculum and interventions that have a demonstrated impact on student achievement. Let go of curriculum and practices that don't have a strong evidence base.
• Celebrate positive gains--no matter how small. My role model here is the late Texas educator Rita Pierson. Take seven minutes to watch her TED Talk "Every kid needs a champion" and you'll be inspired by how she affirmed to every child in her care that they were valuable and capable, no matter what their grades or test scores showed.

For more on this topic, I recommend "Accelerating Learning As We Build Back Better" by Linda Darling-Hammond, writing earlier this month in Forbes. 

If you agree that our students deserve support like what I've described here, and you agree that we can do better than simply "getting back to normal," then I urge you to make a plan to vote in the ACDC School Board Caucus May 17-23. 

 During this School Board race, I’ve urged voters to cast their ballots based on the full range of significant, long-term issues we need to address over the next four years. 

But I also understand that many voters are interested in knowing how I would be handling the return-to-school issue if I were currently on the School Board. That’s a fair question. Here’s my answer.

I want our students back in school as quickly, fully, and safely as possible. I want those students who need to remain in the virtual learning program to have the highest quality instruction and maintain strong connections to their school communities.  I support following CDC guidance and prioritizing higher student needs.

Like every other parent in Arlington, I’m counting on APS to deliver a five-day, in-person option in August as well as a terrific virtual program. Earlier this month, I outlined a set of critical factors that will need to be in place for this to happen. 

Now let’s talk about the remaining weeks of this school year. This is my position:

1. First and foremost, APS must clear the waitlist of students who are fully virtual and want to switch to the hybrid model. I say “first and foremost” because I am committed to equity and I believe we have to make sure that every child who wants in-person instruction has the opportunity to access it.

2. APS has to manage the last eight weeks of the school year without losing sight of the urgent need to plan and budget for August (budget gets approved on May 6), so that we are absolutely sure we’ll be ready for the fully in-person model and the fully virtual model for next school year.

3. As APS does #1 and #2 above,  I believe it could also expand the number of in-person days for students and families who want this option, particularly at the elementary level and in alignment with the March 19 updated CDC guidance. For equity reasons, APS should not require that families provide their own transportation in these cases.

During the March 25 School Board meeting, I heard Dr. Durán say that expanding the number of in-person days would for some students require a class schedule change or teacher reassignment. Many students in that category might not want to experience such a disruption for the remaining weeks of the school year. For that reason, I believe the expansion of in-person days should be opt-in instead of automatic for all hybrid students. And I believe there’s a way to make that happen (see below if you’re interested in the steps I think we can take.)

Many APS parents are pointing to Fairfax County, which has recently expanded the number of in-person days available to students. “Why not in Arlington?” is a fair question to ask, and I would like to hear Dr. Durán and the other APS leaders answer it during the next School Board meeting.

How I would handle the expansion of in-person learning days:

1. Identify the number of additional students who can safely be accommodated in each classroom and school  (in common areas and during lunch) in accordance with March 19 CDC guidelines. Make this data publicly available.

2. Immediately clear the waitlists of virtual students who want to return for at least two days of in-person instruction in those classrooms.

3. Then promptly notify hybrid families of any open spots in those classrooms. For example, if my student attends school on Tuesday and Wednesday in Mr. Ramirez’s class, then I would be notified that there are spots available on Thursday and Friday in Mr. Ramirez’s classroom. This outreach should happen via multiple methods (including email, text,  WhatsApp, and via bilingual resource coordinators) to ensure every family knows about this opportunity.

4. Families interested in expanding the number of in-person days would opt in. If there are more families interested in doing so than there are spots available, a lottery should be held. In doing so, APS should identify which circumstances, if any, would assign priority to certain students (e.g., academic needs identified by teachers; mental health needs identified by families; etc.).

5. This is obviously more complicated at the middle and high school levels given the number or class changes each student has. Thus, it likely makes sense to prioritize implementing this at the elementary level and for students with disabilities who need and are able to return for more days. This would allow APS to pilot-test some of its plans for next school year to ensure that things will go as smoothly as possible.

6. Encourage parents to transport their own students whenever possible. When it’s not possible, APS should fill school buses to safe capacity and then arrange for additional, temporary busing. This is the kind of expenditure that federal relief funding is meant to support.

I hope this message will say as much about my general approach to leadership as my problem-solving around the questions many of us are raising about how and when to open up schools further. I’m showing my leadership by walking you through the issues that we must tackle, now and before August; paying careful attention to how different student groups and families might be affected; and laying out a strategic and safe path forward.

Last week, my opponent and I participated in our first round of School Board candidate forums. I asked myself what I would be listening for if I were a voter instead of a candidate. What do each candidate’s words tell you about their values? Their vision for improving our schools? Their ability to be good stewards of public trust and public funds?
​
If I were in your shoes, I’d be evaluating each candidate along the lines of what’s listed below. (And these are my minimum requirements--not the longer list of what I wish every candidate would bring to the job.)
​

​What’s becoming clearer every time we have one of these candidate forums is that some in our community are treating this election as a single-issue race. That issue is how APS has operated during the pandemic and how it is now handling the last weeks of this school year.

I say “has operated” and “is now” very intentionally, because the issue is not whether we will have a five-day, in-person instruction option in August. That commitment has been made. 

So I encourage you to ask yourself and others this question: Is this election really about a single issue, which will be over by the time the new School Board member takes office next January? 

Some in our community may object to the way I am characterizing the “single issue” of pandemic response, and they’ll point out that the issue is really a larger lack of accountability: the School Board’s accountability to the community, and the Superintendent’s accountability to the School Board.

Accountability is essential. Public trust in our school system has been badly eroded over the past year, in significant measure because there hasn’t always been clear accountability for decisions made. The clearest demonstration of this is the fact that the School Board never took a vote on APS reopening plans. I have gone on the record stating that I believe School Board members should have voted over the 2020-21 school year instead of receiving information in the form of monitoring updates from APS leaders. This would have signaled to the community that elected officials were taking ownership of the problem and that they felt a sense of shared responsibility to push for schools to open as quickly, fully, and safely as possible. 

I have called for accountability on a range of other issues, too, because accountability and its counterpart, transparency, are core values that have to be manifested in everything we do.

So if accountability is valued by both candidates, and if the pandemic is behind us by next January when the new School Board member will take office, then what does this election come down to? 

I think it comes down to which candidate is in this for the long haul and whether you believe they bring the values, experience, and ideas we’ll need over the four years ahead. We have serious work in store to rebuild public trust, plan for growth, balance the budget, fully support our staff, eliminate inequities, and ensure every student is seen, supported, challenged, and valued.

If you believe I’m the candidate who checks the boxes, and if you believe I will work tenaciously over the entire four-year term on the full set of challenges and opportunities ahead of us, I hope you’ll support my campaign. Make a plan to vote in the Caucus May 17-23!

​Last week, a member of the community submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to gain access to all the emails I’ve sent to School Board members for the past two years. 

FOIA seems a little over-the-top for a local School Board race, but here we are. I have nothing to hide about my motivations for seeking office, and so I’d like to share a summary of everything I’ve sent over the past two years. It may help you determine what kind of School Board member I’d be.

1. I objected to a decision that sidelined equity, ignored policy, and wasn’t grounded in good data. I was the McKinley PTA president during last year’s school move process, and in that capacity I sent many emails to the School Board, including a joint letter signed by six other school PTA leaders highlighting shared concerns. My concerns about the school moves are summarized in the Washington Post op-ed I wrote last year on February 9.

2. I asked for accountability. In February 2020 I contacted the School Board to ask what steps it would take to hold staff accountable for constructing a new elementary school (Fleet) that lacked essential accessibility and safety features for students with disabilities and ended up costing millions of dollars to retrofit. One School Board member reached out to ask whether I had any insights to share about how facility design and construction could be better managed. My husband happens to work in commercial construction and real estate development so we sent a response outlining several suggestions. 

3. I expressed concern for others in the community. I sent emails last fall about the elementary school boundary process. Although my own children are no longer in elementary school, I really worried that it was too much to ask for community engagement on boundaries at the same time families were working hard to support virtual learning and in some cases struggling to meet basic needs. I also suggested that there were other, one-year temporary measures APS could take to provide much-needed relief to Arlington Science Focus, which has been significantly over capacity, and utilize the new site at Reed.

4. I sought out other perspectives. When I decided earlier this year to run for School Board, I contacted current School Board members to ask for their perspectives on immediate and longer-term issues facing APS. This has been part of a larger effort I’ve been making to reach out and listen to people with diverse viewpoints and experiences in our school system. I’ve had more than 40 of these conversations (outside of campaign meet-and-greets) and I learn something valuable every time.

5. I said thank you. I don’t agree with every decision the School Board makes. However, I was brought up to acknowledge people’s hard work and good intentions whenever possible, even though I might disagree with them or need to hold them accountable. So yes--you’re going to see emails from me that thank School Board members for their service during an extremely difficult and unprecedented situation. You will read that I thanked them last fall for exercising caution, because I am the sister of a phenomenal ICU nurse who was for a harrowing stretch of time the only person allowed to be bedside with her patients. 

Does this mean that I agree with every decision the School Board and APS leadership have made during this extraordinary time? No. But I believe that we can disagree and even hold people accountable with decency and dignity. I’d say that’s something that has been missing for far too long in our civic discourse.

If this is the kind of leader you’d like to serve on your School Board, I hope you’ll support my campaign and make a plan to vote in the Caucus May 17-23.

In Arlington, we’re riding a wave of student enrollment growth that’s projected to continue for the rest of this decade. Enrollment growth has put the squeeze on existing school spaces, and even with recent construction and expansion projects, we’ll still have a seat deficit at all levels elementary through high school.

In recognition of this fact, County Manager Mark Schwartz sent a letter to APS Interim Superintendent Cintia Johnson in November 2019 identifying 25 County-owned sites that could be appropriate for future APS facilities. Schwartz noted that nearly all the sites currently host County-operated programs (like Parks & Recreation classes) so the County and APS would need to figure out how to relocate or co-locate these existing programs by engaging stakeholders and groups like the Joint Facilities Advisory Commission (JFAC).

JFAC’s charge includes “big picture, visionary thinking and providing a forum where fresh and creative ideas can be discussed freely.” In this spirit, I’m offering four snapshots of school districts across the country who have made innovative choices about their school facilities. I believe these are promising examples for APS, the County, and groups like JFAC to consider.​

Twenty-five years ago in Dorchester, MA, leaders of the Codman Square Health Partners clinic decided to launch a bold experiment: they would partner with other community organizations to open a charter high school and co-locate it with the clinic.

Codman Academy Charter Public School is the only public school in the U.S. located within a community health center. Codman’s student population comprises 99% students of color, and 89% live in low-income households. 100% of Codman’s graduates are accepted to college, and 100% of families have met with school staff within the past year.

The health center provides free dental, hearing, and vision screenings for students, individual and family counseling, and teaches the high school’s sex education program. Many students complete internships at the health center that launch careers in medicine and community health.

Leaders of the health center and school have produced a blueprint for other communities (like Arlington?) that want to adopt their model. The partnership is a win-win for the school and the health center, which is able to reach more people in the community through connections that the school creates.  It’s also providing the kinds of wrap-around support that its students and their families need: when I visited the school in December 2018, head of school Thabiti Brown told me, “Let’s ensure that we are educating so that we can produce graduates who are able to use their knowledge to change the world. The world is one that isn’t just and fair for low income folks, and it isn’t one that supports Black and Brown students.”

​I'll admit that I'm a little bit obsessive when it comes to planning things. For example, a few years ago I had to move my dad and stepmom cross-country to get them closer to family and to find the right combination of health care providers to deal with my father's worsening dementia. In the months leading up to the move, I was conference-calling with siblings, researching assisted living options and Medicaid eligibility, consulting with social workers, and more. It was so important to have a plan.

Not everything in life requires that kind of careful planning--but the design of our public education system certainly does. The decisions we make about what kinds of knowledge and skills we're teaching in school, and how we go about teaching those, have a big impact on students and their families.

 The APS Instructional Program Pathways (IPP) work is an ongoing exercise in instructional design. APS says that the IPP will “serve as a framework for making decisions around instructional visioning that will inform APS planning initiatives.” Once I got past the word “visioning” (I know it’s a valid Scrabble word, but the former English teacher in me doesn’t love it), it became apparent to me that the IPP is at the heart of our school system’s purpose and operation.

Our public schools play many roles in the lives of children, families, and community members, but it’s hard to argue with the idea that teaching and learning should be at the core. What kinds of knowledge, skills, and dispositions will kids need in order to live full and productive lives--and what kinds of instructional experiences and programs are we offering to support that development? 

These are the kinds of questions that should drive the IPP. Instead, APS lists “Promoting demographic diversity in our programs and schools” and “Assisting with managing enrollment at all school levels” as two of the four IPP goals. While these are very important goals, they don’t belong in the IPP, the aim of which should be to provide thoughtfully-designed learning programs and experiences that reflect best practices and respond to students’ needs and interests.

In its current form, the IPP is preoccupied with managing enrollment and capacity issues: these appear to be the exclusive focus of the five priority areas identified by APS instructional leaders as part of the IPP visioning process this year. 

If we really want to put instruction at the center, I think we need to reframe the IPP process. I’m advocating for a process that looks like this:

1. Begin by identifying the competencies and qualities that will equip students to thrive in their adult lives. This is accomplished to some extent in the Profile of a Virginia Graduate but APS could engage students, families, and the community in work that elaborates and develops these. Check out the eight competencies that Albemarle County Public Schools has crafted for its own Portrait of a Graduate, or EL Education’s Dimensions of Student Achievement.
2. Then identify the curricula and instructional strategies that would develop the competencies and qualities we want students to have, paying attention to research on effectiveness and student engagement. Based on the outcomes we’re hoping to achieve, should we be looking at project-based learning? Place-based learning? Competency-based progression? Etc. Check out the exciting work that Lindsay Unified School District in California did in this area, making it a national leader with a strong equity focus.
3. Design instructional program pathways that build in #1 and #2 above, and that offer distinctive areas of focus related to students’ interests, lived experiences, and aspirations.
4. Once we have #1-3 in place, then we work to ensure that we have the appropriate facilities, resources, and capacity to provide these program pathways in a sustainable and equitable way.

I’m also concerned that APS is assuming it has the right option programs and program pathways in place. The APS statement “ensure community is aware of existing programs and how to access” assumes that students and families simply don’t know about current programs and would be interested in participating if they did. That may not be a valid assumption. Instead, I think it’s important for APS to consider whether it is offering the right programs in response to community needs and students’ interests.
​
 If you believe that our students deserve a stronger instructional vision and framework, I hope you’ll join me in providing this feedback to APS. If you believe that the School Board needs to insist on stronger instructional planning, I hope you’ll support my campaign.

Voters deserve to know what School Board candidates think about the APS proposed budget. Here are some of my takeaways about facilities and operations, district administrative costs, and the long-term sustainability of the APS budget. If you missed Parts One and Two of my budget analysis, you can find them in the News section of my campaign website.
​
Nine Takeaways on Facilities and Operations

1. Lease payments for technology purchases:  After the year we've had, it's clear that every student needs a  digital learning device. But do we have the right ones? APS will spend nearly two million dollars next year to renew its lease on digital devices. APS is leasing iPads for elementary and middle school students (consumer list price: $329 each) and MacBook Air laptops for high school students (list price: $899). Next door in Fairfax County, students are working with HP Chromebooks (list price: $249). Students in Montgomery County use iPads and Lenovo Chromebooks (list price: $289). Chromebooks are the device of choice in Alexandria and Loudoun County, too. Do we need such expensive technology? I don't think we know, because to my knowledge there hasn't been a comprehensive evaluation of the 1:1 device program since it was launched several years ago.

2. Replacement of buses:  APS is budgeting $1 million to replace some of its buses, which in my understanding is done on a regular schedule based on the age of the bus. However, since most of the bus fleet sat idle for a year, I'm wondering if we can delay bus replacement until FY23.

3. Busing to the new school at the Reed site: APS is asking for $390,000 to hire more bus drivers and attendants when a new elementary school opens at the Reed site next fall. This is a real head-scratcher: last year during the school moves process, APS argued that McKinley's student population should move to Reed because it was "so walkable" and that making this move would actually reduce transportation costs. So what happened?

4. Elimination of late buses: I'm really concerned about a proposed Tier 2 cut that would eliminate late buses for athletics and other afterschool programs. Cutting late buses could jeopardize many students' ability to attend athletic practices or participate in afterschool activities, so if I were a School Board member I would want to see some detailed data about ridership in order to truly understand the potential equity impact of ending this service.

5. Furniture: There's $1.2 million in the budget for new, additional, and replacement furniture. $750,000 is allocated to outfit the new classroom spaces at the Ed Center site, and the rest goes to existing schools in the system. As a School Board member, I'd want to explore how how we might improve our Procurement processes to reduce costs like these. In particular, I’m interested in a shift some school districts are making away from a “Request for Quote” approach (like APS's current “Invitation to Bid”) to a “Request for Proposal” model. The District Management Group writes, "With RFQs, the purchasing function is outlining the solution in the form of detailed specifications for a product or service; this often precludes the district from considering alternatives and making trade-offs to get the best value. Instead, outlining a need in an RFP allows vendors to use their creativity, knowledge, and expertise to come up with the best solutions at the best value for the district."

6. Increased cost of APS office space:  APS is reporting a $131,000 increase on the lease of its current office space in the Sequoia/Syphax complex. I'm curious to learn why APS wasn't able to negotiate a better deal, given that commercial real estate markets have taken a hit during the pandemic. 

7. Freezing open positions in Maintenance and Plant Operations: Tier One cuts would delay the hiring of an additional HVAC technician, a quality control specialist, and a relief custodian. APS states, "Schools may not get relief custodians as needed based on absences across the school division." Is this really a good game plan, given our need for heightened safety and cleanliness protocols?

8. Aquatics: I'm curious about a cut that was proposed, but not taken, in Tier 4. The Aquatics staff offered to cut $80,000 and actually described this reduction in a favorable way, stating that it would "increase efficiency and create a $0 based community swim budget (income and expenses are equal). Gives Aquatics the ability to more directly control expenses, costs, and staffing levels." 

9. ADA compliance: This is a capital improvement budget issue, not one that impacts the operating budget (except in debt service). But since I am talking about facilities, I'll add this in: we must never again open a new, multimillion dollar facility that's not fully accessible and ADA compliant. This has happened twice in the last three years, at The Heights building in Rosslyn and at Alice West Fleet Elementary. We've spent millions of extra dollars retrofitting those buildings so that they are fully inclusive and safe for students, families, and staff with disabilities. This is a financial and legal issue, and it's morally wrong. 
 
Five Takeaways on District Administrative Costs

1. General Counsel: I support the creation of an in-house General Counsel's office. I believe this will help our school system anticipate and prevent inequitable (and potentially unlawful) treatment of individuals and groups, and it should ensure tighter compliance with the federal and state laws and regulations that govern special education, English language learning, and more.

2. Language Services Registration Center (LSRC) registrar: APS is proposing a Tier 2 cut which would delay hiring a registrar to enroll and support students and families who are non-native English speakers.  Without this position at the LSRC, it would be up to individual school registrars to enroll English learners (ELs) and to assess students' English proficiency to determine their placement in the appropriate EL level. This seems like a lot to ask of our school registrars, who may not have the necessary training to do this. There's also an awful lot at stake for these new EL students and their families.
3. English learner leadership: I support hiring a Director of the Office of English Learners, which creates an equivalent leadership structure for students receiving direct EL services (18% of APS students) as exists for students receiving special education services (14% of APS students). 

4. Executive-level staff reorganization: It's certainly the right of every new CEO to change how an organization is structured and staffed. Dr. Durán wants to restructure his executive leadership team, which would involve creating a Chief Operating Officer position. This reorganization comes with a net cost increase of $110,000. As a School Board member, I'd question whether this is the right year to create a new C-level position. I'd ask whether APS's current Chief of Staff, Brian Stockton, could fill these shoes for one year, especially given his strong track record managing and improving operations in other school systems.

5. Ongoing budget study: The FY22 proposed budget includes $75,000 to continue a budget study that we've been conducting since FY20. I want to know more about the goals of this study, what we're learning, how we're applying what we've learned, and ultimately, whether it will help us budget in a more sustainable way going forward.

Which brings me to...

Sustainability
There's a big, red flag that's buried in the 544-page budget document, and you can find it on page 192. Here's what it's signaling to us:

• The budget gap that is $42 million this year is projected to grow to $64 million next year, and to  $111 million by FY25.
• All reserves, except the Capital Reserve, will be depleted by FY 2024 unless additional funding is provided.
• APS states: "In the FY 2022 Superintendent’s Proposed Budget, a total of $4.4 million is used to offset ongoing costs in the budget. These funds are one-time revenue sources and must be eliminated in subsequent years, which increases the shortfall for APS in future years. While this practice works for expenditures that are incurred one-time, such as purchasing a vehicle or a software package, this is not sustainable over time for ongoing expenditures." 

​
As APS noted in the text that follows (p.196) and as the Budget Advisory Council urged in its end-of-year report last June, we need to take a long, hard look at some of our major costs.

The BAC report identifies class sizes (planning factor ratios) as an obvious first place to look, since staffing is the school system's most significant cost. As I mentioned in last week's budget analysis, I believe that there are significant cost savings we can achieve within our existing class sizes if we implement some best practices used on other school districts.

The other areas we need to look at include transportation, energy, IT, and the cost savings we might achieve through close coordination (and perhaps in some cases, consolidation) with the County. BAC notes, "These [reviews] may be underway, in which case there should be more transparency around what is happening so that the community is aware and can provide input."  This is the type of vitally important and difficult work that I would push for as a School Board member.
 

Voters deserve to know what School Board candidates think about the APS proposed budget. Here are some of my takeaways about staffing and instructional costs; next week I’ll cover facilities and operations, central office administration, and overall budget sustainability. You’ll see equity highlighted throughout.

First, a few general headlines:

1. Federal aid: The good news item of the week is the American Rescue Plan Act passed by Congress, providing $126 billion for K-12 education. APS could receive up to $20 million, which it could use to address learning loss, purchase technology, provide mental health services to students, and more.
2. Baseline adjustments: Each year, APS begins budgeting by reviewing the previous year's budget and adjusting up or down as needed. Reductions are triggered “when historical spending patterns or other data indicate that the funds budgeted in the previous year will not be required in the next.” It’s not clear how rigorous this review process is or what criteria are being used. In a January 26 letter I sent to the Assistant Superintendent of Finance, I suggested that APS should have a separate, instructionally-driven “academic return on investment” process as used in many other school districts. I didn’t receive any response.
3. Clear goals and measures: There’s a lot of empty "boilerplate" language in the 544-page budget document, and in some places not a lot of specificity about why we’re making changes or how they will be evaluated. An example is the request for an Immersion Revisioning Consultant (pp. 68-70). What is the specific deliverable? How will we measure the quality of the work? Why are we justifying it by listing 12 very general APS performance objectives?  If you’d like to see a contrasting example of this done well, look at the Family and Community Engagement Coordinator stipend (pp.45-46) which provides a clear rationale, specific evaluation measures, and describes the steps APS will take to course-correct as needed. 

Six Takeaways on Staffing Costs
Staffing is the biggest spend for school districts, so it’s often the first place people look to find cost savings. Here’s what I am seeing in this category:

1. Increasing class size: APS is proposing a Tier 2 budget cut that would increase class sizes in kindergarten and in high school, for a savings of about $1 million. Before we increase class size, we should take steps to reduce the number of empty seats  within our current class size guidelines. Research suggests that school districts can save tens of millions of dollars by doing this; I shared more detailed information about the strategies involved in my January 26 letter to the Assistant Superintendent.
2. A needs-based budget?  APS is presenting this as a “needs-based” budget, which means it reflects the true cost of operating the school system. I question whether this is truly needs-based, however, because it doesn’t include the full cost of staff compensation. Most school systems operate using a “step-and-lane” salary scale, including APS. Step increases are fundamental in this model, not an extra. APS staff have not had a full step increase and cost of living adjustment (COLA) since 2008. Even if we end up cutting step increases or COLA later in the budget, we need to show the true cost of compensation.
3. $200,000 compensation study: APS has included $200,000 to continue a compensation study it’s been doing since FY20. What are we going to learn in this study that we didn’t learn in last year’s study? Couldn’t we direct this money to actual staffing costs--like providing paid maternity and paternity leave, which County employees get but APS staff doesn’t?
4. Professional development: This budget includes more than $240,000 in possible cuts to professional development (PD) for staff. I am generally very pro-PD: we need our teachers and school leaders to keep learning and improving. But across the U.S., districts annually spend thousands of dollars per teacher on PD, often with little or no evidence of impact.  In APS, the 2020 Your Voice Matters survey results show that only 35% of teachers believe district-provided PD is meeting their needs, and only 37% report that they think it’s improved their students’ achievement. Clearly there’s room for improvement. I support the $80,000 requested by the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for PD--89% of staff responded favorably to PD offered by DEI last year. As a School Board member, I would ask whether the DEI professional development will conform to PD best practices (sustained, differentiated) and I’d want to know about overlap with PD provided by the separate Office of Equity and Excellence.
5. Tuition reimbursement and National Board Certification: I support restoring funding for tuition reimbursement, which helps staff members pursue recertification and advanced degrees. APS is proposing a $20,000 Tier 2 cut that would reduce support for teachers pursuing National Board Certification, and this is a bad move. This is a national program headquartered in our own county with proven positive impact on student achievement, particularly for students of color and students from lower-income families.
6. Scholarships and support for paraprofessionals: I’m pleased that APS preserved funding that provides scholarships and testing support for paraprofessionals.  Nationally, this is an important part of a “Grow-Your-Own” strategy to recruit and retain more teachers of color. 
   
   
   

Nine Takeaways on Instructional Costs

1. Screening tools: I support DIBELS reading screening and expanded access to math screening. There’s good evidence to suggest that DIBELS will be better at catching reading problems for more students than the tests we’ve been using, and this will be particularly important as we come back from COVID. As for universal social-emotional screening, I’d want to know more about what is being measured. If we’re looking for evidence of trauma or mental health issues, absolutely yes. But I think we have to be careful about screeners that purport to measure things like grit, growth mindset, and conflict resolution skills, because many times these include implicit racial bias.
2. English Language Arts curriculum: The Department of Teaching and Learning (DTL) is asking for $400,000 to identify and implement a new curriculum, with additional related costs in the coming years (total price tag: $1 million). This is a tough one for me. Do we need an effective language arts curriculum? Without a doubt. Did we just adopt one, and spend lots of time and money training teachers to use it, within the past five years? Yes. DTL writes in the budget: “At this time, we feel that our previously adopted (and currently purchased) resources are lacking in efficacy, as well as a strong research foundation, and they are not entirely evidenced-based. Our data trends support a need for us to go in a different direction.” As a School Board member, I would be upset to read this, and I’d want to know what we are going to do differently in the future to ensure that such waste doesn’t happen again.
3. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology: APS is proposing a $290,000 Tier 1 cut that would eliminate tuition for Arlington students to attend TJHSST, a regional Governors School for high-ability STEM students. I oppose this cut, and here’s why: APS describes TJHSST as an “option program” at the high school level. We shouldn’t be eliminating option programs in a budget process--that’s an instructional decision, and it needs to be made in the context of a holistic evaluation of all of our instructional offerings. Would we propose the wholesale elimination of Immersion or H.B. Woodlawn or other option programs in a budget? No.
4. Gifted Education: I support the expansion of the Office of Gifted Education, an office that’s currently staffed by two people--a supervisor and an administrative assistant, working to support a gifted student population that ranges between 20-30% at different grade levels. Adding two Gifted Specialists over the next two years will provide better support to school-based resource teachers, and it can help us increase the identification of historically underrepresented populations like students of color and students from lower-income families.
5. Instructional Apps: APS is asking for funding to create two new “Instructional Application Analyst” positions in order to support the rapidly-expanding use of instructional apps, which APS says now number “in the hundreds.” As a School Board member, I’d be concerned about the job description for this role, which focuses on technical troubleshooting and setting up classroom accounts; instead, I would hope that at least one of these new positions will be dedicated to ongoing evaluation of whether these apps actually improve student learning.
6. Summer School: APS is proposing a Tier 1 cut that would eliminate funding for a Summer School Coordinator and Assistant, plus reductions that would require all communication with families to occur through Parent VUE and other digital platforms--no printing. Given the importance of summer school in addressing COVID-related learning loss, I question these cuts and the equity implications of limiting how families will receive information.
7. Arlington Tiered System of Supports (ATSS): A proposed Tier 2 cut would eliminate funding to hire an ATSS Specialist. I’m concerned that leaving this position vacant would impact our ability to provide targeted support to students as they return full-time to school buildings. That said, I’m also hearing that ATSS is being implemented inconsistently at schools, with wide variation in its effectiveness. As a School Board member, I’d want to see specific baseline data about this program and what measures we’ll use to target improvement. 
8. High School Counselors: A Tier 2 proposed cut would reduce the number of counselors in our high schools. I don’t think this is a wise move as we work to support students post-pandemic.
9. Student Behavior and Climate Coordinator: APS wants to create a new position to improve school climate and culture. I strongly believe that healthy school culture drives better teaching and learning, and so I support the creation of this role. I object, however, to the focus on “Student Behavior” and a reporting structure which puts this position within the Department of Administration. This department focuses on things like School Resource Officers, student discipline, and incident reporting: essentially, preventing all the things that could go wrong in a school. It’s necessary to ensure school safety, but healthy school climate involves much more, as indicated by students’ responses to the 2020 Your Voice Matters survey: only two-thirds of APS students report that they feel connected to other students at school, and just 42% say they feel their culture and history is reflected in their school--a number that drops to 35% for Black students and 33% for Asian students.

Voters deserve to know what School Board candidates think about the Superintendent’s proposed budget, since adopting budgets is one of the School Board’s primary responsibilities each year. I’ve also heard from many in the community who want to understand the budget better so they can figure out whether and how to participate in the budget adoption process.
​
School system budgets are complicated and often long--the proposed APS budget is 544 pages of reading. Because of this, I’m going to break down my budget analysis into three installments, all of which you can expect this month.


Part One: Budget Process and Format
You might be asking, “Why is she talking about process and format? I want to know what might get cut since there’s currently a gap between expenses and revenue. I want to know whether we’re spending money on the right things.”

Two reasons for starting with process and format: first, I’m buying myself a little more time to finish going through the entire budget, which was published only a week ago. Second, I believe that we must make some changes to the budget process and format in the years ahead, and I hope you will join me in calling on APS staff and the School Board to do just that.

Here’s a big problem: there’s simply no good way for the public to read and understand the budget as it’s currently presented. People with the time and financial literacy skills needed to digest all the information are at a distinct advantage in advocating for programs and line items they care about--and that’s a real equity issue. 

Does a school district budget have to be 500+ pages, inclusive of the “executive summary” which is 206 pages long? No.

Consider these nearby examples, all from school systems larger than our own:

• Montgomery County: 434 page FY21 budget, 88 page executive summary. MCPS also produces a two-page budget overview flyer in seven languages at the beginning of its budget process. (The APS Budget at a Glance is available only in English.)
• Loudoun County: 431 page FY21 budget, inclusive of a 35 page executive summary. In the interest of transparency, LCPS also publishes School Board Question & Answer packets that show what questions the School Board members asked at each meeting and work session, and how LCPS staff responded. 
• Prince George’s County: 294 page FY21 budget. Like Loudoun County, PGCS is also publishing questions that School Board members are asking about proposed budgets before they get adopted.

We also need reforms in the budget process so that the community has time to understand and weigh in on the budget, and so that we’re making full use of the incredible talent and commitment within our citizen-led  Budget Advisory Council (BAC).
 
Here’s how it’s currently working:

1. APS staff prepares a budget, guided by budget direction that the School Board (aided by the BAC) develops in late summer.
2. The Superintendent presents a proposed budget to the School Board. This year, that happened on February 25.
3. The School Board and the BAC have six weeks to read, understand, and revise the budget before they approve it on April 8. The BAC is supposed to advise the School Board on budget matters, but they’re getting their first look at the full budget at the same time the School Board does.
4. The community has the same window of time to understand the budget and contact School Board members. The one public hearing on the budget occurs a little less than four weeks after the proposed budget is published--this year, the hearing will take place on March 23.

In Montgomery County, the Superintendent proposed a budget to the School Board on December 15. There were multiple public hearings and work sessions before the School Board adopted the budget two months later on February 9.
In Prince George’s County, the Superintendent proposed a budget on December 10, followed by public hearings in January and February before the budget was adopted and sent to the County Executive on March 1.
But you know what? We don’t have to look to other counties to come up with a better process--because our own Budget Advisory Council proposed one in the excellent End of Year Report it delivered to the School Board last June. 

BAC members made thoughtful recommendations that will improve how budgets are structured and presented, and that will involve the BAC itself earlier and more meaningfully in the process--the way that citizen advisory councils are supposed to be engaged. 

Recommendations that I endorse include:

• A more transparent, early preview budget process (BAC provides additional detail about what this could look like).
• A format for future budgets where the budget change is proposed, category of need is assigned, and the pros and cons of making the change are explained side-by-side in sufficient detail.
• A systematic and comprehensive review of major APS cost centers, done in a collaborative and transparent way so that the community can provide input. BAC calls the current approach to budgeting “unsustainable given our projected enrollment growth and a natural aversion to facing the increasingly hard facts and difficult decisions that will be involved with deeper cost cutting. It is obligatory for the APS leadership to address the cost side of this structural equation before the revenue cavalry is called again.”

Like the Budget Advisory Council, I also believe we may need to renegotiate the revenue sharing agreement with the County Board to establish a higher share for APS as a “funding floor.” BAC observes, “Doing this is merely acknowledging future deficit and political realities and serves mostly to traverse that territory ahead of the budget season instead of during it.”

Before BAC presented its end of year report to the School Board, it provided APS staff with an opportunity to review and comment on the report. Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Management Services Leslie Peterson and her team declined to do so.

I want to give them a pass for this in 2020, since they were dealing with a pandemic and working hard to close the FY21 budget gap. But moving forward, this has got to change.
We really need improvements in the process like the ones that BAC has proposed--and these are things I will work for as a School Board member. If you agree with me, I hope you’ll support my campaign.

Next week in Part Two of my budget analysis, I’ll cover the proposed expenditures. Then in Part Three, I’ll focus on the tiers of proposed cuts.

If this information was useful to you, I hope you’ll share it with friends and neighbors. In order to provide all kids with an excellent education, schools need financial resources, human talent (staff and volunteer), and capital resources (the facilities in which teaching and learning take place). The APS budget fuels all three--so we have to get it right.